the July 2019

DEBATE OVER NEW ANTI-ABORTION LAWS

In recent months several states have passed tough new anti-abortion laws in an attempt to get the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which made abortion legal in all 50 states.  I have listened to the debate; a great deal of which is nonsense.

I have listened to women saying such things as: "The government is interfering with my reproductive rights;" "I have the right to control my own body;" "It's my choice;" and we could go on and on.  I believe in women's rights.  I believe in human rights.  God created us with the ability to make choices.  Although I believe I have the right to share my beliefs with others, I would never impose my views on others.  However, there is a limit to all of our rights.  My rights extend only to the point that they interfere with other peoples' rights  I have no right to go on someone else's property and do as I wish because it is their property, and I would be interfering with their rights.  The government tells us we may not assault another person, no matter how angry we are with them, because that interferes with their rights.  The government regulates or even outlaws certain mind-altering drugs, because their use can interfere with the rights of others, and with society as a whole.  So there are limits to our rights.

I support a woman's right to control her reproductive functions.  I support a woman's right to choose regarding whether or not to have a baby.  But I believe that right ends when the woman's rights result in harm to another person - a live baby in her womb.

To listen to the women's rights groups, you would think that there is a great debate over when life begins.  There is not!  Ask any respectable scientist or doctor, and they will tell you that life begins at the moment the male sperm fertilizes the female egg.  The women's rights groups can not contradict that.  Their reply is that the life produced by the fertilization of the egg is not human life.  Well, what kind of life is it?  Is it primate life; reptile life; what kind of life is it?  It is human life!

You see, the debate is not over when life begins.  The debate is over when that human life becomes "viable" - when is it able to live outside of the mother's womb?  Some years back I saw a brochure put out by Planned Parenthood which described the "fetus" (and we'll come back to that term), described the "fetus" as being nothing more than a blob of tissue.  Then it stated that the "fetus" could not live outside the mother's womb before the 30th week of pregnancy.  Well, that is an outright lie!  I have two granddaughters (23 and 25-years old at the time of this writing), who were both born at 26-weeks.  But more concerning than the statement that a "fetus" could not live outside the mother's womb before 30-weeks, was the picture next to that statement.  The picture was of a baby in the mother's womb.  It had discernable  features: a head, body, arms and legs.  The impression Planned Parenthood intended to leave with the reader was that the picture was depicting a baby at 30-weeks.  But that picture was a lie!  It was a picture of a baby at about 8-weeks.  

May I share some facts with you?  Fact Number 1: The baby's blood and the mother's blood never mix.  The baby has it's own blood, and often it is not the same blood type as the mother's blood type.  Did you know that an HIV positive mother will not produce an HIV positive baby unless the baby contracts the virus during birth, coming down the birth canal?  That's why HIV positive mothers' children are taken by C-section.  Fact Number 2: The baby has its own individual, identifiable DNA, making it a separate person from the mother.  Fact Number 3: Let's go back to that word "fetus."  Have you heard the much touted saying, "It's not a baby, it's a fetus?"  "Fetus," like many medical, and even legal terms, come out of the Latin language - it is a Latin word.  Words in other languages usually have accepted translations into English.  The accepted translation of the word "fetus" has always been: "an unborn baby."  It's a child!  We could say much more; but let's leave it at this for the moment.

Back, before the Civil War, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision which was later nicknamed, The Dread Scott Decision.  It declared that "Negros were not people" and therefore were not covered by the guarantees of the U.S. Constitution.  In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Roe v. Wade, ruled that "an unborn baby was not a person" and therefore is not covered by the guarantees of the Constitution.  Wow!  What that decision did was to allow a woman to hire a doctor to murder her baby.  Before 1973, if such a scenario were discovered, the mother would have been charged with "murder for hire;" and the doctor, if it were proved that he had performed numerous abortions, would have been charged as a "serial killer."  What has changed?

Looking at the rapid plunge that our society is taking into insanity, I have to ask myself: "Is it possible for a society to sink to any lower level of depravity than to murder its own children mostly for the sake of convenience."

Oh, and by-the-way, I doubt that the Supreme Court will overturn Roe v. Wade.  But even if it does, that will not outlaw abortion in this country.  Before Roe v. Wade, abortions were available in Nevada.  If the ruling were to be overturned, some states would ban abortion; but there would be many, perhaps even one-third of the states that would keep it legal in their state. 
____________________________________

Click Here to return to Editorial Comment

Click Here to return to Home Page
____________________________________

 
 
 

 

 

  Site Map